Unless ATI gives them the exact specifications on how to directly talk to the Rage Pro chip, Apple can't sensibly write a driver (reverse-engineering is not really feasible here). I'm not 100% sure if Apple and ATI have some kind of special deal granting Apple access to these specifications, but I can't see why they would have any interest in doing so. Name one major graphics chip manufacturer that does *not* do the driver development (and no, custom-modifying reference drivers does not count).
[quote]<strong>
ATI isn't responsible for writing the drivers for a OS they don't make.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not true. ATI, just as any other graphics chip manufacturer, *does* write drivers, and *does not* write any OSes at all.
[quote]<strong>This has always been up to Apple to do. Apple usually is the one that hands out the updated drivers. Apple has always been the one that you called for support.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, Apple hands out and distributes the drivers, and does the support, but they don't *develop* them, and AFAIK never did for third-party chips.
[quote]<strong>Heh yeah and this justifies what they did how? More apologetic knee jerks. Apple never gave anyone a reason for their actions. I am ashamed of Apple right now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, could it be that "ashamed" should have been "pissed off because I wasted my money" instead?
AGAIN. it's NOT up to ATI to make sure all the Macs that APPLE said would be OS X ready to make sure that they are. This is on APPLE'S shoulders. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, OS X *does* run on these machines. Apple never claimed it would run fast, or even only as fast as OS 9, did they?
<strong>OpenGL acceleration on Mac OS X has several enhancements over OpenGL under Mac OS 9.1, including improved OpenGL conformance and robustness, support for stencil buffers, </strong><hr></blockquote>
This, by the way, goes a long way to explaining why Rage2/Pro can be supported on MacOS9, but not MacOSX. They are different OpenGL implementations. The MacOS9 implementation is incorrect in many ways and this forces applications to code for the incorrect behaviours, and limits how good the implementation can be. MacOS X gets a full fledged, industrial strength implementation. This requires hardware support for stencil buffers and various other things that the Rage2/Pro cannot do.
the only one not showing a "trace of a clue" is you.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doubt that.
[quote]<strong>
To think that writing Rage pro support in would be a difficult talk is assinine. It would take 2-3 people maybe a few weeks plus testing.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh yeah? WHat makes you think so? Ever did something like that?
[quote]<strong>Don't give this bullshit that it would somehow limit Apple from making other advancements by dedicated 2 people to write a driver where the work has already been started.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um, exactly how is moving two people from other projects to writing a rage pro driver for some weeks not hindering advancement in those other projects? Also, how has "work already been started"?
[quote]<strong>and even if it did I would rather OS X work and support current hardware which is said to be supported then forget about it and move on.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, that's how you see it, obviously others have other preferences.
[quote]<strong>
depends,
ie: the screensavers "work" but they really go at around 5 fps.
games on the otherhand often don't work at all because they expect these machines to have hardware accelerated OpenGL.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nonetheless, this invalidates the claim (which wasn't yours though, I believe) that Apple has been lying because they said OS X would run on these machines and that OS X supports OpenGL (both are true, even if it's dog slow and software-only).
And that my friend makes the hardware NOT OS X-ready
</strong><hr></blockquote>
According to common definitions of "...-ready", "OS X ready" would rather mean "the hardware supports running OS X", *not* "OS X supports every single feature of this particular piece of hardware".
The Rage Pro chip? Not so sure about that (yes, Apple does use plain standard ATI chips, nothing custom-made for them).
[quote]<strong>
And it doesn't matter what you think Apple is willing to do. They made statements. They need to back them up. The ****ed up big time. They lied to the consumer. They pulled the bait and switch.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
One could also argue that, since OS X does run on these machines (albeit slow), they did not lie.
I keep seeing statements like, OS X does run on older G3 Macs, although slowly, so Apple didn't lie. Who cares about minor technicalities like that? Apple has not tried to pass on the kind of information that people need to make a good decision. Apple calls it an upgrade. What kind of upgrade make the computer run worse? In some ways it is actually a downgrade. And video performance is not all. Other hardware that was part of the original Mac does not function at all. Customers should be informed of these details, when performance takes a serious hit or things do not work. That is what I expect Apple to do, not to mislead customers. The fact that these older Macs are not completely supported does not bother me. The fact that Apple is not up front about it does.
Now, all that venting of steam aside, I really like OS X, and it runs well enough for the simple things I do with my 233 MHz Beige G3. But I sympathize with the frustration that many of you feel. It would not have been as bad if Apple spoke up just as soon as they knew the support would be less than they hoped to provide.
I currently own a PowerMac and would like to purchase an NVIDIA-based graphics card for my system. Where can I purchase one?
Currently all Mac NVIDIA-based graphics cards are made and sold by Apple. If you wish to purchase an NVIDIA-based graphics card for the Mac, you will need to contact Apple through their Apple Store at: <a href="http://www.store.apple.com"; target="_blank">www.store.apple.com</a>
Doesn't this situation sound completely different from that with ATI? I couldn't find any mention about NVIDIA providing Mac drivers while the ATI site does. Does this imply that, in the future, we might expect better support for equipment with NVIDIA hardware since Apple seems to be completely responsible for providing NVIDIA support whereas with ATI, we can only speculate as to what extent Apple has control over ATI drivers?
The above is speculation based on information on the ATI and NVIDIA websites. Perhaps somewhat would care to provide more insight?
This thread is in response to a MacCentral report. Looking at the Knowledge Base document, I see that it was originally issued on March 9, 2001 and modified on December 20, 2001. Does anyone know what the Apple document originally said and what was changed?
Do we even know what Apple meant? We know MacCentral's interpretation. How about this: The extent to which the graphics cards are supported is no more than what is issued in the latest OS X release. No further OS X support is not planned (no separate driver releases will be issued?) since ATI has stated in its website that it is not their intention to provide OS X support for RAGE? PRO based products.
Is my interpretation correct? Probably not. But is MacCentral's interpretation definitive? Maybe, maybe not.
It seems that much is being read into Apple's intentions when the point of the TIL is "Movies and 2D graphics perform better at lower color depths when using Power Macintosh computers with earlier ATI graphics chipsets."
OK, so does anyone really know? Has Apple replied to this subject anywhere?
MacOS X is a completely different operating system from MacOS Classic, from the kernel up. Some things cannot be done because MacOS X works differently.<hr></blockquote></strong>
But OpenGL is OpenGL sure OS X is a different OS than OS 9. Seems to me Apple isn't supporting machines as much as they are processors. Which is a bad move if you sell the whole box.
[quote]<strong>
Thanks for doing your 3 minutes of research, by the way. It shows the ATI doesn't want to do the work either, even if Apple can be held responsible for things they OEM'd.</strong><hr></blockquote>
ATI is just waiting to see if OS X catches on. It's up to Apple to make sure they drivers are available not ATI.
Unless ATI gives them the exact specifications on how to directly talk to the Rage Pro chip, Apple can't sensibly write a driver (reverse-engineering is not really feasible here). I'm not 100% sure if Apple and ATI have some kind of special deal granting Apple access to these specifications, but I can't see why they would have any interest in doing so. Name one major graphics chip manufacturer that does *not* do the driver development (and no, custom-modifying reference drivers does not count)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes But I was asking for the contract that was said to be the reason it couldn't be done. either way Apple could pay ATI to do it. So the point is moot.
[quote]<strong>
That's not true. ATI, just as any other graphics chip manufacturer, *does* write drivers, and *does not* write any OSes at all.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Yes and as ATI stated Apple was responsible for the cards that are shipped with their machines. If Apple wants their OS supported with the older cards it's up to Apple to get it done.
[quote]<strong>
Yes, Apple hands out and distributes the drivers, and does the support, but they don't *develop* them, and AFAIK never did for third-party chips.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Again this is a moot point. Apple could pay ATI to do it.
[quote]<strong>
Hmm, could it be that "ashamed" should have been "pissed off because I wasted my money" instead?<hr></blockquote></strong>
No I am ashamed that such a reputable company has sunken this low. It's sad to see a company that once boasted how long you could use one of their puters before it became obsolete now not being able to claim that. Usually a OS will work fully on a Mac that is 4 years older than the OS. OS X didn't work fully on a computer made a year before it came out.
Well, OS X *does* run on these machines. Apple never claimed it would run fast, or even only as fast as OS 9, did they?
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
OS X partially runs on these machines. Again.. these machines where not "OS X Ready" as Apple claimed them to be. Some of the Core of OS X doesn't work. And it hasn't from the start. And according to Apple it wont. Apple DID claim it would be OS X Ready. Having a chipset that doesn't support one of the core features in OS X is hardly OS X ready
According to common definitions of "...-ready", "OS X ready" would rather mean "the hardware supports running OS X", *not* "OS X supports every single feature of this particular piece of hardware".
Bye,
RazzFazz
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And what common definition is that? Hahhah I haven't seen such a load of horshit in my life. Stop being a apologist.Apple needed to say
These computer will run OS X and will take advantage of most* of OS X's technologies
*No open GL on these rage chipsets
Saying a computer is OS X ready is saying it takes advantage of all of OS X's technologies.
These computers are NOT OS X ready. Apple lied. I doubt it was intentional. But you can't just BS then not take responsibilities for your actions or words. When you do that you lose credibility and trust.
The Rage Pro chip? Not so sure about that (yes, Apple does use plain standard ATI chips, nothing custom-made for them).
<hr></blockquote></strong>
The iBook that is not supported came out a year before OS X was shipped. Having a OS not support a computer that is only a year old is unreasonable, and unjustifiable. It's nonsense.
You guys seems to be tiptoeing around the fact that only Apple is responsible for what they say. Doesn't matter the reason behind why Apple isn't supporting these machines. Apple claimed these machines would be OS X ready and they weren't. Plain and simple. And yes if Apple wanted to really do the right thing.. they could pay ATI to write the drivers. You can't say ATI wouldn't do it for money. Well you could .. but you'd be a retard.
Again Apple is the one that made the claims. Only Apple is to be held responsible for their claims. Making excuses and apologetic arguments only makes you look like a simpleton Mac zealot. Some people for some reason have a hard time admitting that a company that makes a product they really like can do wrong. I have seen it in the car industry.. the video game console industry to the computer industries. You're love for the product is in such a zealous nature that you make to make excuses and justify the reasoning of wrong doings by these companies you see in your eyes can do no wrong.
Who knows maybe it IS Job's RDF working. I've seen people's IQs lower when he is near.
Nooooo... that's what I said. The MacOS 9 OpenGL implementation is incomplete and incorrect in some ways. Making it correct in MacOS X is highly desirable, but that means it cannot be implemented on the early Rage chips. Cannot.
I'm not apologizing for Apple, I'm saying that sometimes technical things are impossible to do, no matter what you said or promised. Yes, in my opinion Apple is reponsible for making their products work as well as possible. If it is simply not possible, however, what then? Technology is not magic, software can't solve every problem. Yes, they could implement something that would run... but it would be so slow that you'd be foolish to have it installed!
Does this mean that OSX doesn't work on those computers in question? No, it means that MacOS X OpenGL implementation doesn't work -- everything else is fine. Same holds for the playback of certain QuickTime codecs, except that you can make those work better by dropping the resolution.
Should Apple have warned you about this when it started talking up OSX? Yes, but then again hindsight is 20/20 and not all issues are brought to the fore right away, some fester and lurk in the background until forced into the limelight by the progress of development.
Nooooo... that's what I said. The MacOS 9 OpenGL implementation is incomplete and incorrect in some ways. Making it correct in MacOS X is highly desirable, but that means it cannot be implemented on the early Rage chips. Cannot.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Could you please show me some documentation on this?
[quote]<strong>
Yes, they could implement something that would run... but it would be so slow that you'd be foolish to have it installed!<hr></blockquote></strong>
So what if it is slower? It would be faster than it is NOW and it would be compatible with OS X. And Apple would have kept it's promise. There is NO excuse.
[quote]<strong>
Does this mean that OSX doesn't work on those computers in question? No, it means that MacOS X OpenGL implementation doesn't work -- everything else is fine. Same holds for the playback of certain QuickTime codecs, except that you can make those work better by dropping the resolution.<hr></blockquote></strong>
A lot of OS X relies on the acceleration to even make the speeds usable. You shouldn't HAVE to drop the resolution of your computer if it's fully supported by OSX. Again your making excuses. Quick Nor Open GL will work right on these computer in OS X. This is not acceptable.
[quote]<strong>
Should Apple have warned you about this when it started talking up OSX? Yes, but then again hindsight is 20/20 and not all issues are brought to the fore right away, some fester and lurk in the background until forced into the limelight by the progress of development.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No when the iBook that is listed was put out Apple knew what was going on. I have yet to read ANY documentation that says it's impossible for these cards to be supported. Apple is simply not doing it. They gave no reason. If the reason is the card can't support OpenGL (which I will doubt very seriously till I can get some proof) then Apple needs to make amends with the people that want a new card. Apple said their machine would be OS X ready when it shipped. IT NEVER WAS. This is false advertising. Plain and simple.
In response to one of Sinewave's question, I tried looking around <a href="http://www.opengl.org."; target="_blank">www.opengl.org.</a> I haven't found anything yet, but if anyone is really curious, that's one place to look.
A couple of interesting things I found there was one question on the forum in which a programmer asks why his code that worked in OS 9 gets an error in OS X (no answer yet), and that this thread mirrors a thread there, except that exactly the same things are being said about Windows XP and OpenGL, and, (coincidentally?) many of the comments have to do with older ATI cards.
In fact, here's one:
"The only solution is not to install XP at all.
We all know wich (sic) is the story :
1) Microsoft starts selling a beta OS claiming it's a final.
2) People start arguing with that OS.
3) Microsoft and/or card vendors start writing buggy drivers.
4) People starts arguing about the drivers' bugs too.
5) Finally OS and Drivers seems to be working.
6) Two days after Microsoft pops out with a new OS.
Ok, just "joking" , but hey it's real, ATI Rage 128 does not have a so stable driver.
And the other side, also last Detonator makes my GF256-2-3 cards crash somethimes.
And here's something in the FAQ:
Q. I have an old accelerator board that does not have an OpenGL driver. Is there any hope for me?
A. First, send an email to the board manufacturer. Tell them you want them to release a full and stable OpenGL driver. They do listen.
Can Apple pay ATI to develop drivers? The problem seems to be uniform with the older ATI cards, whether Wintel or Apple. So why would ATI even bother with a porential market which is much less than 5% of their target, when they could make more money elsewhere?
But speaking of facts, why are Mr. Sinewave and Mr. Applenut seeming to take MacCentral's interpretation of a terse TIL as the basis for a running argument? The whole first paragraph of the MacCentral article iare the author's words.
Comments
<strong>
They can't can they? Care to show me some proof?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unless ATI gives them the exact specifications on how to directly talk to the Rage Pro chip, Apple can't sensibly write a driver (reverse-engineering is not really feasible here). I'm not 100% sure if Apple and ATI have some kind of special deal granting Apple access to these specifications, but I can't see why they would have any interest in doing so. Name one major graphics chip manufacturer that does *not* do the driver development (and no, custom-modifying reference drivers does not count).
[quote]<strong>
ATI isn't responsible for writing the drivers for a OS they don't make.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not true. ATI, just as any other graphics chip manufacturer, *does* write drivers, and *does not* write any OSes at all.
[quote]<strong>This has always been up to Apple to do. Apple usually is the one that hands out the updated drivers. Apple has always been the one that you called for support.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, Apple hands out and distributes the drivers, and does the support, but they don't *develop* them, and AFAIK never did for third-party chips.
[quote]<strong>Heh yeah and this justifies what they did how? More apologetic knee jerks. Apple never gave anyone a reason for their actions. I am ashamed of Apple right now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, could it be that "ashamed" should have been "pissed off because I wasted my money" instead?
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>
AGAIN. it's NOT up to ATI to make sure all the Macs that APPLE said would be OS X ready to make sure that they are. This is on APPLE'S shoulders. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, OS X *does* run on these machines. Apple never claimed it would run fast, or even only as fast as OS 9, did they?
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>OpenGL acceleration on Mac OS X has several enhancements over OpenGL under Mac OS 9.1, including improved OpenGL conformance and robustness, support for stencil buffers, </strong><hr></blockquote>
This, by the way, goes a long way to explaining why Rage2/Pro can be supported on MacOS9, but not MacOSX. They are different OpenGL implementations. The MacOS9 implementation is incorrect in many ways and this forces applications to code for the incorrect behaviours, and limits how good the implementation can be. MacOS X gets a full fledged, industrial strength implementation. This requires hardware support for stencil buffers and various other things that the Rage2/Pro cannot do.
<strong>
the only one not showing a "trace of a clue" is you.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doubt that.
[quote]<strong>
To think that writing Rage pro support in would be a difficult talk is assinine. It would take 2-3 people maybe a few weeks plus testing.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh yeah? WHat makes you think so? Ever did something like that?
[quote]<strong>Don't give this bullshit that it would somehow limit Apple from making other advancements by dedicated 2 people to write a driver where the work has already been started.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um, exactly how is moving two people from other projects to writing a rage pro driver for some weeks not hindering advancement in those other projects? Also, how has "work already been started"?
[quote]<strong>and even if it did I would rather OS X work and support current hardware which is said to be supported then forget about it and move on.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, that's how you see it, obviously others have other preferences.
[quote]<strong>
depends,
ie: the screensavers "work" but they really go at around 5 fps.
games on the otherhand often don't work at all because they expect these machines to have hardware accelerated OpenGL.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nonetheless, this invalidates the claim (which wasn't yours though, I believe) that Apple has been lying because they said OS X would run on these machines and that OS X supports OpenGL (both are true, even if it's dog slow and software-only).
Bye,
RazzFazz
[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>
<strong>
And that my friend makes the hardware NOT OS X-ready
</strong><hr></blockquote>
According to common definitions of "...-ready", "OS X ready" would rather mean "the hardware supports running OS X", *not* "OS X supports every single feature of this particular piece of hardware".
Bye,
RazzFazz
[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>
[ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
Thanks for the clarifications here and in numerous other threads.
I know forums are the place for opinions, but it's good to have some substance, too.
<strong>
3-5 years old? try newer than that
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Rage Pro chip? Not so sure about that (yes, Apple does use plain standard ATI chips, nothing custom-made for them).
[quote]<strong>
And it doesn't matter what you think Apple is willing to do. They made statements. They need to back them up. The ****ed up big time. They lied to the consumer. They pulled the bait and switch.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
One could also argue that, since OS X does run on these machines (albeit slow), they did not lie.
Bye,
RazzFazz
[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>
Now, all that venting of steam aside, I really like OS X, and it runs well enough for the simple things I do with my 233 MHz Beige G3. But I sympathize with the frustration that many of you feel. It would not have been as bad if Apple spoke up just as soon as they knew the support would be less than they hoped to provide.
<a href="http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?PAGE=support_faqs"; target="_blank">http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?PAGE=support_faqs</a>;
I currently own a PowerMac and would like to purchase an NVIDIA-based graphics card for my system. Where can I purchase one?
Currently all Mac NVIDIA-based graphics cards are made and sold by Apple. If you wish to purchase an NVIDIA-based graphics card for the Mac, you will need to contact Apple through their Apple Store at: <a href="http://www.store.apple.com"; target="_blank">www.store.apple.com</a>
Doesn't this situation sound completely different from that with ATI? I couldn't find any mention about NVIDIA providing Mac drivers while the ATI site does. Does this imply that, in the future, we might expect better support for equipment with NVIDIA hardware since Apple seems to be completely responsible for providing NVIDIA support whereas with ATI, we can only speculate as to what extent Apple has control over ATI drivers?
The above is speculation based on information on the ATI and NVIDIA websites. Perhaps somewhat would care to provide more insight?
This thread is in response to a MacCentral report. Looking at the Knowledge Base document, I see that it was originally issued on March 9, 2001 and modified on December 20, 2001. Does anyone know what the Apple document originally said and what was changed?
Do we even know what Apple meant? We know MacCentral's interpretation. How about this: The extent to which the graphics cards are supported is no more than what is issued in the latest OS X release. No further OS X support is not planned (no separate driver releases will be issued?) since ATI has stated in its website that it is not their intention to provide OS X support for RAGE? PRO based products.
Is my interpretation correct? Probably not. But is MacCentral's interpretation definitive? Maybe, maybe not.
It seems that much is being read into Apple's intentions when the point of the TIL is "Movies and 2D graphics perform better at lower color depths when using Power Macintosh computers with earlier ATI graphics chipsets."
OK, so does anyone really know? Has Apple replied to this subject anywhere?
<strong>
MacOS X is a completely different operating system from MacOS Classic, from the kernel up. Some things cannot be done because MacOS X works differently.<hr></blockquote></strong>
But OpenGL is OpenGL sure OS X is a different OS than OS 9. Seems to me Apple isn't supporting machines as much as they are processors. Which is a bad move if you sell the whole box.
[quote]<strong>
Thanks for doing your 3 minutes of research, by the way. It shows the ATI doesn't want to do the work either, even if Apple can be held responsible for things they OEM'd.</strong><hr></blockquote>
ATI is just waiting to see if OS X catches on. It's up to Apple to make sure they drivers are available not ATI.
<strong>
Unless ATI gives them the exact specifications on how to directly talk to the Rage Pro chip, Apple can't sensibly write a driver (reverse-engineering is not really feasible here). I'm not 100% sure if Apple and ATI have some kind of special deal granting Apple access to these specifications, but I can't see why they would have any interest in doing so. Name one major graphics chip manufacturer that does *not* do the driver development (and no, custom-modifying reference drivers does not count)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes But I was asking for the contract that was said to be the reason it couldn't be done.
[quote]<strong>
That's not true. ATI, just as any other graphics chip manufacturer, *does* write drivers, and *does not* write any OSes at all.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Yes and as ATI stated Apple was responsible for the cards that are shipped with their machines. If Apple wants their OS supported with the older cards it's up to Apple to get it done.
[quote]<strong>
Yes, Apple hands out and distributes the drivers, and does the support, but they don't *develop* them, and AFAIK never did for third-party chips.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Again this is a moot point. Apple could pay ATI to do it.
[quote]<strong>
Hmm, could it be that "ashamed" should have been "pissed off because I wasted my money" instead?<hr></blockquote></strong>
No I am ashamed that such a reputable company has sunken this low. It's sad to see a company that once boasted how long you could use one of their puters before it became obsolete now not being able to claim that. Usually a OS will work fully on a Mac that is 4 years older than the OS. OS X didn't work fully on a computer made a year before it came out.
<strong>
Well, OS X *does* run on these machines. Apple never claimed it would run fast, or even only as fast as OS 9, did they?
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
OS X partially runs on these machines. Again.. these machines where not "OS X Ready" as Apple claimed them to be. Some of the Core of OS X doesn't work. And it hasn't from the start. And according to Apple it wont. Apple DID claim it would be OS X Ready. Having a chipset that doesn't support one of the core features in OS X is hardly OS X ready
<strong>
According to common definitions of "...-ready", "OS X ready" would rather mean "the hardware supports running OS X", *not* "OS X supports every single feature of this particular piece of hardware".
Bye,
RazzFazz
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And what common definition is that? Hahhah I haven't seen such a load of horshit in my life. Stop being a apologist.Apple needed to say
These computer will run OS X and will take advantage of most* of OS X's technologies
*No open GL on these rage chipsets
Saying a computer is OS X ready is saying it takes advantage of all of OS X's technologies.
These computers are NOT OS X ready. Apple lied. I doubt it was intentional. But you can't just BS then not take responsibilities for your actions or words. When you do that you lose credibility and trust.
<strong>
The Rage Pro chip? Not so sure about that (yes, Apple does use plain standard ATI chips, nothing custom-made for them).
<hr></blockquote></strong>
The iBook that is not supported came out a year before OS X was shipped. Having a OS not support a computer that is only a year old is unreasonable, and unjustifiable. It's nonsense.
Again Apple is the one that made the claims. Only Apple is to be held responsible for their claims. Making excuses and apologetic arguments only makes you look like a simpleton Mac zealot. Some people for some reason have a hard time admitting that a company that makes a product they really like can do wrong. I have seen it in the car industry.. the video game console industry to the computer industries. You're love for the product is in such a zealous nature that you make to make excuses and justify the reasoning of wrong doings by these companies you see in your eyes can do no wrong.
Who knows maybe it IS Job's RDF working. I've seen people's IQs lower when he is near.
[ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
<strong>
But OpenGL is OpenGL.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nooooo... that's what I said. The MacOS 9 OpenGL implementation is incomplete and incorrect in some ways. Making it correct in MacOS X is highly desirable, but that means it cannot be implemented on the early Rage chips. Cannot.
I'm not apologizing for Apple, I'm saying that sometimes technical things are impossible to do, no matter what you said or promised. Yes, in my opinion Apple is reponsible for making their products work as well as possible. If it is simply not possible, however, what then? Technology is not magic, software can't solve every problem. Yes, they could implement something that would run... but it would be so slow that you'd be foolish to have it installed!
Does this mean that OSX doesn't work on those computers in question? No, it means that MacOS X OpenGL implementation doesn't work -- everything else is fine. Same holds for the playback of certain QuickTime codecs, except that you can make those work better by dropping the resolution.
Should Apple have warned you about this when it started talking up OSX? Yes, but then again hindsight is 20/20 and not all issues are brought to the fore right away, some fester and lurk in the background until forced into the limelight by the progress of development.
Nooooo... that's what I said. The MacOS 9 OpenGL implementation is incomplete and incorrect in some ways. Making it correct in MacOS X is highly desirable, but that means it cannot be implemented on the early Rage chips. Cannot.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Could you please show me some documentation on this?
[quote]<strong>
Yes, they could implement something that would run... but it would be so slow that you'd be foolish to have it installed!<hr></blockquote></strong>
So what if it is slower? It would be faster than it is NOW and it would be compatible with OS X. And Apple would have kept it's promise. There is NO excuse.
[quote]<strong>
Does this mean that OSX doesn't work on those computers in question? No, it means that MacOS X OpenGL implementation doesn't work -- everything else is fine. Same holds for the playback of certain QuickTime codecs, except that you can make those work better by dropping the resolution.<hr></blockquote></strong>
A lot of OS X relies on the acceleration to even make the speeds usable. You shouldn't HAVE to drop the resolution of your computer if it's fully supported by OSX. Again your making excuses. Quick Nor Open GL will work right on these computer in OS X. This is not acceptable.
[quote]<strong>
Should Apple have warned you about this when it started talking up OSX? Yes, but then again hindsight is 20/20 and not all issues are brought to the fore right away, some fester and lurk in the background until forced into the limelight by the progress of development.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No when the iBook that is listed was put out Apple knew what was going on. I have yet to read ANY documentation that says it's impossible for these cards to be supported. Apple is simply not doing it. They gave no reason. If the reason is the card can't support OpenGL (which I will doubt very seriously till I can get some proof) then Apple needs to make amends with the people that want a new card. Apple said their machine would be OS X ready when it shipped. IT NEVER WAS. This is false advertising. Plain and simple.
A couple of interesting things I found there was one question on the forum in which a programmer asks why his code that worked in OS 9 gets an error in OS X (no answer yet), and that this thread mirrors a thread there, except that exactly the same things are being said about Windows XP and OpenGL, and, (coincidentally?) many of the comments have to do with older ATI cards.
In fact, here's one:
"The only solution is not to install XP at all.
We all know wich (sic) is the story :
1) Microsoft starts selling a beta OS claiming it's a final.
2) People start arguing with that OS.
3) Microsoft and/or card vendors start writing buggy drivers.
4) People starts arguing about the drivers' bugs too.
5) Finally OS and Drivers seems to be working.
6) Two days after Microsoft pops out with a new OS.
Ok, just "joking"
And the other side, also last Detonator makes my GF256-2-3 cards crash somethimes.
And here's something in the FAQ:
Q. I have an old accelerator board that does not have an OpenGL driver. Is there any hope for me?
A. First, send an email to the board manufacturer. Tell them you want them to release a full and stable OpenGL driver. They do listen.
Can Apple pay ATI to develop drivers? The problem seems to be uniform with the older ATI cards, whether Wintel or Apple. So why would ATI even bother with a porential market which is much less than 5% of their target, when they could make more money elsewhere?
But speaking of facts, why are Mr. Sinewave and Mr. Applenut seeming to take MacCentral's interpretation of a terse TIL as the basis for a running argument? The whole first paragraph of the MacCentral article iare the author's words.